It is COMPLETELY WRONG to say that I think atheists or any other non-Christians would agree with me if they would just open up their eyes and see reason.  I do not believe reason could infect someone [profoundly affect someone] so as to compel them to see my position as truth.

 

I don’t think that at all. It would be equally inaccurate to state that because I have found reasonable evidences for my Christian orthodox faith that I feel I have proven God’s existence. It would be equally misrepresentative to say that I think I’ve proven Christianity. I can’t prove that Christ Jesus rose from the dead, but I do think that I have found a reasonable weight of evidences to suggest that He did. Furthermore, I find it more reasonable to conclude [based on, in brief, the consistently vindicated historical and archaeological accuracy of the Biblical record, the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, the credibility of the Gospel accounts, the agreement of extra-Biblical sources on the events of Christ's trial, crucifixion under Pontius Pilate and the apostolic church's conviction that Jesus had in fact risen again and were willing to die for this conviction] that Jesus did in fact live, die by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, and rise again as promised than to believe to the contrary. It cannot be understated that this event, this resurrection, is the lynchpin of Christendom. It is the one belief upon which the entire rest of our doctrine and faith depend.

 

I’ve elaborated on the evidence for the resurrection and related issues here:

http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/resurrection-apologetics/

You see, the issue isn’t proof. The applications of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the headache of epistemology aside, it’s really impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty.

 

Even the scientific method has its limitations:

I sent the following in an email to the Home Depot’s Public Relation’s department. They have yet to respond.

I hope those who value freedom of religious expression will join me in boycotting Home Depot for what I feel is a clear case of religious discrimination:

It has come to my attention that you fired an employee for wearing an American flag button which stated “One nation under God, indivisible,” on the grounds that you have, to quote your man Craig Fishel, “a blanket policy, which is long-standing and well-communicated to our associates, that only company-provided pins and badges can be worn on our aprons” and that “This associate chose to wear a button that expressed his religious beliefs.” I want to tell you why appealing to this technicality won’t exonerate you.

 

We all know this is beside the point. Mr. Kevin Trevor had been weasring this button on his apron for an entire year. It appears it only became an issue when he began bringing his Bible to work and having the audacity to read it on his lunch.  That this appears to be a case of religious discrimination appears pretty well undeniable.

 

To make matters worse you have this stated Values policy [ http://corporate.homedepot.com/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDdwNHH0sfE3M3AzMPJ8MAV0sDKADKR2LKmxrD5fHr9vPIz03VL8iNKAcAodaFaQ!!/dl2/d1/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnB3LzZfMEcwQUw5MTU1RjBVSEExR0JUMzAwMDAwMDA!/]which you’re conveniently ignoring in order to justify this firing.

 

Your 3rd statement on that list states: “Doing the right thing:
We exercise good judgment by “doing the right thing” instead of just “doing things right.” We strive to understand the impact of our decisions, and we accept responsibility for our actions.” src: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_god_button_home_depot

 

Well, you’re not doing the right thing here. You’re just covering your own corporate butt. The right thing would been to take into account that this button wasn’t a religious statement that anyone would take offense to. That line is from the Pledge of Allegiance to the US flag and is as USAmerican as mom and apple pie. If you were being consistent with enforcing this sort of sad misotheistic policy you wouldn’t accept US currency either with its religious expression of “In God We Trust.” Again, if the fellow hadn’t brought his Bible to work, you would likely have [and apparent did for up to a year] regarded it as simply an expression of his patriotism. 

 

Your final values statement reads: “Respect for all people:
In order to remain successful, our associates must work in an environment of mutual respect, free of discrimination and harassment where each associate is regarded as a part of The Home Depot team.” It’s clear that respect for all people in your view doesn’t include those who believe in God; after all, we wouldn’t want to offend the teensy minority that don’t believe in God.

Since I do believe in God and I abhor anti-religious discrimination, I will be strongly discouraging folks from shopping at Home Depot this holiday season.

 

Good day and you owe that man an apology.

–Sirius Knott

---

Check out this Chicago Tribune article as well: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/wjw-news-god-button,0,2808898.story

I recently came across a post calledWhat is “evolutionary theology”? The author asked a series of questions concerning the implications for theology if evolution were true. Below are his questions and my answers. The athor, whom I found to be fair and generous, is asking the right questions. I hope he comes to the right conclusions.

• What is the biological definition of “life”, and what implications does that have for an understanding of the “soul”?

My answer: The biological definition of life is hotly contested [though I feel compelled to mention Dr Werner Gitt's observation: "The common factor present in all living organisms, from bacteria to man, is the information contained in all their cells."]; however, the Bible makes distinctions between plant ["green things"] and animal life ["nephesh"], which makes sense if you think aboout it. Dead flowers bother us a whole lot less than a dead carcass on our living room table!

• If death is a necessary part of the evolutionary process, how do we imagine the role of death in God’s “creative process”?

My answer: You’re presuming both the truth of evolution and that God would actually use such a process [which i realize is the entire point of your post]. The first part of your postulate is partially incorrect. Death isn’t really a part of evolution; that is, it’s not part of the mechanism, though it’s present in the process. To wit, molecules-to-man evolution is a process of cycling death and mutation via natual selection, sexual selection, etc whereby all life is descended from the first life. So death is assumed in the process, as are mass extinctions. The theological problem we run into here is that the Bible states that by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin. It also states that the wages [deserved earnings] of sin is death. How is it earned if simply a natural part of the life cycle of all organisms? How is death the result of man’s sin if death predates both man and sin? Unfortunately, the reason these questions are nonsense is because the Bible specifically identifies Death as the last enemy. An enemy. Not a natural part of life. To make death, the last enemy, part of the creative process of a God who identifies Himself with Life is, I imagine, a special sort of blasphemy. In any case, it assumes that God did not create by fiat, by spoken command, as the Bible relates nor in 6 solar days as it also plainly states in both Genesis and Exodus 20:11 [i.e- the 4th Commandment]

• We attribute global consequences to human sin (”the fall”), but were not those dynamics (death, decay, carnivorism, thorns, earthquakes) present in creation before humans evolved? How does this impact our understanding of the Biblical account?

Did you know that USAmerica has over 600 separate Christian denominations? Each of these movements is testimony to our commitment to doctrinal purity, but they also give evidence to a pervasive problem within the Body of Christ: Our tendency toward division and schism rather than unity when we disagree.

Frankly, that’s the light some Christian pastors see the Creation/Evolution controversy in; they see it as just too divisive so they don’t really give the issue the consideration it deserves. Those who think of Creation as a side issue think that Creationists are make much ado about nothing. Making mountains out of molehills. Brewing hurricanes in a tea kettle. They’ve decided the controversy just isn’t worth it.

Honestly, what pastor wants the center aisle of his church to be the no-man’s land of the latest pew war?

This approach forgets that Christianity itself is divisive. The Gospel is an offense. The Cross is foolishness and a stumbling block. We are divided into darkness and light, sheep and goats, saved and damned. By the Word of Truth.

Famously, David was accused by his brothers of just trying to stir up the people. Goliath daily mocked the armies of God. From the first David heard of it, he was outraged.When his brothers rounded on him for being a troublemaker, he returned with a cutting question: Is there not a cause?”

The Church faces a modern-day Goliath who mocks us to scorn for trusting in the historical, geographical, scientific and numeric accuracy of the revealed Word of an infinite, infallible God. A good number of Christians have deserted the camp of Biblical inerrancy and tried to make the Bible fit the claims of finite, fallible men – so long as those claims are made in the name of science. But science has been hijacked by evolution. Nevertheless, erroneously supposing that evolutionism and long ages have been proven, men of faith judge the revealed inerrant Word of an infallible, infinite God who was there at the beginning by the grasping, often erring word of fallible, finite men who weren’t! They claim to hold the Bible authorative in matters of faith and practice, but hold the opinions of men as their true authority – so long as it calls itself science.

It is our children who suffer for this compromise. While their parents may be able to reconcile the contradictions of chance evolution and intelligent design, they’re a different story. Assured by public school teachers and college professors that science deals with the real world while religion deals with faith, and that evolution is scientific truth, they recognize that chance and design are irreconcilable and so reject religious truth wholesale. They’re dropping out of church at a rate of 70%, many never to return. Their parents compromise the Word of God and pave the way for them to become, as Jesus warned, ”twice the child of hell.”

But I will tell you plainly, the real problem is NOT a few turncoats, even those nearly 12,000 ministers who have signed the pro-evolution Clergy Letter Project. Though many of these Creation compromisers now attack their Christian brethren who hold to a traditional, biblical 6-day Creation, they’re simply more obvious. When David came to visit his brothers and heard the mockings and blasphemies of Goliath, he saw no challenger from the armies of God. No one made a stand for God. They ducked and what? Hoped that Goliath would just go away?!

It is the silence of the moderate majority that allows the compromise of a few pro-evolution ministers to look like they represent all of Christendom. I am convinced they do not.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his famous Letters from the Birmingham Jail, lamented that it was the White moderate Christian who represented the biggest impediment to racial equality. The moderate’s silence impeded the quest for raciual equality in USAmerica. When the moderate did speak up, he often did so to criticize Dr. King’s activism as too divisive, too troublesome, too controversial. But Dr. King stood up for the biblical truth of racial equality, though none stood with him. Like William Wilberforce, though few stood with him [on the issue of abolition], he eventually changed the world.

Our modern-day Goliath of evolutionism mocks the beginning of God’s Word, undermining it’s truth, authority and the foundational basis of the Gospel. He openly doubts the veracity and intellect of the Apostles, for their Holy Spirit-inspired wrtings affirm both the Creation and the Flood. He is stealing our children from us through tax-payer supported public schools, indoctrinating them in this atheistic worldview.

Will the moderate continue to keep silence? Will the moderate accuse us of stirring up the people? Is there not a cause?

David stood up. Dr. King stood up. Wilberforce made a stand. The rest is history.

You see, the issue is not whether Creation is divisive, but whether it’s worth fighting for. Make YOUR stand! Sign the Creation Letter today and affirm the truth of a 6-day Creation and a world-wide Flood. Tell the world that we can completely trust the Word of God… from the VERY FIRST WORD!

-Sirius Knott

Note: This post originally appeared at CreationLetter.com in February 2009.

Yes, you read that right. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace for Tangipahoa Parish’s 8th Ward, refused to grant honor a license for an interracial marriage. And apparently his objection and refusal had been fairly well known before this story came out.

Nevermind that this issue was addressed waaaaay back in 1967, wherein the US Supreme Court unanimously decided that “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” [Loving v. Virginia]

He’s decided that he has to do it. For the Children.

That’s right. He’s worried about the children that might be born of such a union and that, in his personal opinion, interracial marriages just don’t last.

Based on what?

The Hammond Daily Star reports him as saying:

““I’m not a racist,” Bardwell said. “I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house. My main concern is for the children.””

However, his objections is [also from the Hammond Daily Star]:

He said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. Bardwell said he came to the conclusion that most black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society.

“Yet, the children are innocent. They had nothing to do with that,” he said.

In many cases, he said, the grandparents or a relative ends up with the children.

“I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”

Bardwell thinks that interracial marriages don’t last; therefor, kids born of such marriages end up with relatives due to divorce; therefor he shouldn’t do interracial marriages. Not only is this illegal and blatantly racist, it’s ignorant.

What studies will he produce to show that interracial marriages don’t work? And how does he go about proving that race was the deciding factor when a good many uniracial marriages also don’t work? Sadly, we have a Divorce culture in USAmerica.

I’m sorry that this man has found a way to justify and excuse his racism. As he’s stated, he does have rights, too. However, under the law and as a representative of the law, he has an obligation not to discriminate against anyone else.

That’s the rub these days: Everyone seems to have rights. Who any longer knows their responsibilites?

He’s stated that if he were ever got in trouble for refusing to perform an interracial ceremony, that he’d resign.

I think he should probably do so.

For a quickprimer on the Biblical Creationist position on Racism and Interracial Marriage, read: http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/interracial-marriage/

Personally and as a minister, I think we need to toss the word “race” into the garbage can.  The idea of human races is an evolutionary by-product. The Bible teaches that there is only one human race, born of Adam and Eve.

-Sirius Knott